5 common crime fighting tactics statistics say dont work - drawing pad-ITATOUCH-img

5 common crime fighting tactics (statistics say don't work) - drawing pad

by:ITATOUCH     2020-04-09
5 common crime fighting tactics (statistics say don\'t work)  -  drawing pad
Of course, we have gone a long way because we are with the devil, but that does not mean that our justice system has come out of the dark.
A lot of the things you see the police do are based on technologies that prove to be less effective.
But change is hard, so even then the system stays the same. . .
Interrogation can make innocent people repent, remember how it feels to accuse a sibling of stealing a favorite thing?
No matter how strongly they protest or how strongly they insist, maybe you should look at the damn place you call the bedroom, it doesn't matter.
Your tape was stolen, and you.
This is the case with the suspect.
If it is difficult for him to change his mind before the trial begins.
He or she will take on everything, from pure crying to continuous crotch --
Scratching is a proof of guilt, which leads to more aggressive questioning. But who cares?
If the bad guys admit it, the good guys win--
This is the only time you are sure you have found the right person.
That is why even if the jury was told that the confession was forced, there was hardly any confession.
After all, no matter what, an innocent man will not admit what he has not done. Right? Wrong. . And we mean .
In a famous 1989 rape joggers case in Central Park, five men were put in prison after police told them to admit the attack.
Then they were released after they did not (
Another person who has already served different attacks has finally stood up).
It turns out that it is not difficult to get a confession from an innocent person. The same high-
Stress psychology is used to eliminate the suspects, and it will allow many innocent people to admit what they have not done.
Since they are innocent people
Under pressure, they don't even know what they're accused.
They may also feel guilty for some unrelated reasons (
They saw the crime, for example, but did not report or stop it).
So, to end the trial, they say whatever they need to say.
For example, ask the person if he did a monologue, claim that he already knew the person was guilty, and then follow the nine script steps to make a signed confession.
Very effective--
Nearly 84% of the time, guilty suspects will plead guilty.
Let innocent people confess.
In addition to the suggestion of false evidence, you can increase the false supply rate to about 94%.
Success is hard to argue!
Especially if you're in jail.
4 Composite sketches are almost useful. You 've seen it in every police show: The victim described the person who attacked her, and the police had a guy there who took a sketchbook and painted what she described.
They can then put the "composite sketch" on the street and find their man.
In other words, the composite sketch is to hope for a picture like this: will give you a person like this: in reality, the victim who helps to make a comprehensive sketch of the attacker will correctly identify the suspect later.
The first problem is that, as you may have noticed, sketch artists are usually bad at work.
In a demo, an artist looks at their photos while watching them.
This is a shocking and tragic result: these days, not the old ones --
We have specialized software to do the work for us.
Terrible and terrible work.
Although the sketch artists of human beings are bad, the software is bad.
In a study
The sketch drawn resulted in 32.
The correct recognition rate of 8%, while the computer-
Only 22 auxiliary sketches are correct in the end.
Time 4%.
This success rate is frustrating if you try to identify anonymous strangers who feed your parking meter, but if you try to find out the person who maliciously murdered your best friend, and it may be a tragedy to come to you next.
Another problem is that the act of creating a composite sketch confuses the victim's hell.
Because of a phenomenon called "phenomenon", your memory is actually very easy to imply, which basically means that the brain remembers the facts, but does not remember where we learned them.
This means that if the artist goes wrong in the sketch (
Suspect has too big nose or too many eyes)
The victim began to think the suspect was like this.
The brain doesn't remember if you saw this feature on a real face or on a sketch for the first time.
So the police dragged in a guy who looked like an inaccurate sketch, and you said, "That's him!
"What we want to say is, if you want to stay away from prison, don't have a face that looks like a horrible painting.
Tools say, God bless, it's very useless to line up, something terrible has happened to you like you were flashed in the park or someone was drunk in your pool.
Fortunately, you saw him very quickly before he ran away.
Now, the only thing between you and sweet justice is picking criminals from the police squad.
Most witnesses choose a target by looking at a group of people, which means that the brain is not well suited for precise matching.
After all, you don't want this guy to be free, and you don't want to think you're wasting everyone's time doing the lineup.
So instead of picking out someone who exactly matches your memory (
As we're sure, it's a bit vague anyway)
You have to pick the closest person.
It's a bit of a problem if your billiard player is not actually in the lineup.
Sometimes, the police who facilitate the lineup can't help.
Remember, they know who has just joined the lineup (such as off-duty cops)
Which one is the chronic pool shitter they will definitely do.
So what you have to point out is that there is one person there and there are several ways in which humans subtly influence the decisions of others, whether or not they intend to do so.
The emphasis on witnesses, for example, can even lead witnesses towards the police.
Once the "right" option is made, the police may praise you greatly during the trial.
This is a big deal. -
Most juries are judged by them.
So, first of all, let you blame the wrong person, and the whole process of distortion that makes you more and more confident about your decision will put an innocent person in prison.
Let you know how unstable the whole process is, just a reminder that the witness suspect may not be in the lineup (
Not to mention that though ---
If they know for sure, there's no reason for the lineup to start).
You can also improve accuracy by getting people who are not familiar with the case to have a lineup so that they don't subconsciously direct witnesses in one way or another.
We do not want to portray the police as a group of corrupt puppets eager to put anyone and everyone in prison.
They are under great pressure to close the case and get the bad guys out of the street.
There is no reason to stop using a technology that helps to gain belief, and in fact all the pressure is the opposite.
This is very helpful in explaining the last two. . .
Two prisons turn non-violent criminals into repeat criminals, and two people convicted of non-violent crimes, such as smoking in a parking lot.
Now, you have to make a choice as a society.
With probation or community service, you can treat them with ease and think that what they are doing is not that serious.
But you also make it easier for them to continue to be criminals, right?
If you don't take them away from the street, they are free to do more pranks.
If you basically tell them the crime will only give you a slap in the face, why don't they?
No, if you're serious about crime, you need to scare those guys directly!
Send them to prison and let them feel the consequences of their actions.
Once out, they will definitely get back to health for fear of going back.
The opposite.
Let's say the two bong smokers we assume, we give one probation/community service, and the other serving a sentence in prison.
The first guy, a guy in a fancy orange vest who chats with the police every week, will be put in jail three years later.
The second person who is considered to be a tougher lesson, has nearly 50% of the chances of reappearing in prison in the next three years.
A variety of studies have shown-jailing first-
It's time for non-violent criminals to stop future crimes. It's weird --
It's almost like a prison that puts you in a criminal mindset, it's like living with other criminals all day and all night, talking to them, completely immersed in their way of life, morality, and way of thinking, let you start like them.
So if the data shows that prisons are not very good for keeping non-violent criminals free from crime, why do we insist on using them?
First of all, some people are in favor of putting people in prison ---
After all, we don't want to be weak on crime.
Are we willing to send people to prison? The U. S.
Civil Prison-
Countries like Denmark (
Only 71 of the 100,000 people were imprisoned). The U. S. has .
The only country close to that number is China. . .
Four times the population.
This is not because violent crime is rampant in the United States. S. , either --the U. S.
Is the average of the class (
For example, the US governmentS.
No matter how civilized the accent makes them look).
Because we're going to jail for everything. The U. S.
It's the only modern country to throw people into jail for writing bad checks.
No other civilization (
Even pretend to be civilized)
Because someone will go to jail in this country.
Then we have a permanent war on drugs.
At the same time, the states are cutting funds and spending on prisons far more (Where is the cost).
Prison is where the bad guys go, if we let those bong-
Smoking asshole walking around for free
When we talk about drugs, we should point it out. . .
For those who don't remember, the drug sentence is an invalid and crazy whirlpool, and the post-80 s are all saying "No!
"Give drugs and then remind others to do the same three times a minute.
This is due to the emergence of crack cocaine, which is a cheaper drug and is popular overnight.
So when Congress thinks of a law to crack down on Dick, they turn to officials nicknamed Jehru.
Jehru draws this conclusion using his PhD in pharmacology, his decades as narc and his life at 1970 session of the Conference of the parties.
Congress turned this into a 100:1 rule, which means that one gram of cocaine is as bad as 100 grams of cocaine.
Having 500 grams of cocaine or 5 grams of Express is sufficient to classify a person as a dealer, resulting in a mandatory sentence of at least five years.
5 grams of crack is a very small amount.
But hey, we can't be too careful, can we?
It's too bad. the whole thing is bullshit.
There is an absolute relationship between cocaine and powdered cocaine.
It turns out that the whole thing is done by Jehru.
Yes: Jehru was convicted of perjury in 1997 for forging degrees, plagiarizing letters of recommendation and helping thousands of undeserving people go to jail.
Again, maybe one can prove this under the theory of "better than making our children all burst heads.
But as you guess, the prison doesn't work. -
It's for drug addicts.
It's okay.
The law forced the judge to impose a huge and expensive prison sentence on the first place. time offenders.
The minimum amount of drugs is so low.
Fortunately, it is only necessary to pass, reducing any proportion of 100:1. . .
Same nonsense ratio of 18: 1.
Although the White House director of Drug Control Policy acknowledged that there was a difference between fast gram and cocaine, the law was still different because. . .
We don't know. We give up.
Custom message
Chat Online
Chat Online
Leave Your Message inputting...
Hi, Nice to meet you! I am temporarilly away a momnet, Please can you talk with me by Whatsapp: +86 13582949978 / Skype: eliahe123? Email: info@itatouch.com Thank you in advance! Sincerely, ITATOUCH Sales {{"url":"/about us","text":"Welcome to visit us!"}} Welcome! What can I do for you?
Sign in with: